Mistreatment of copies of Mein Kampf: Lawsuit....

You deny your bigotry by claiming humour - this is a no win.


I have attempted to show you the nastiness of what you and Gunga do by emulating your style re religion - you appear not to like it - and have called it biogoted.


Answer my specific assertion, which I have enumerated again and again and again. I cannot think of any way to make it simpler. Perhaps if you read some of the posts again?

You came to pile on with Gunga - if you failed to read the full disgusting text of his stuff, you might wish to be more careeful whom you support in future.

What DO you think of his full message, lash?

And, assuming my reason was to 'pile on with Gunga' is a figment of your mind. I said why I came to the thread. That reason didn't change when he posted what he did later.

If a person is wrong in one thing or several hundred, it doesn't cast a blanket of wrongness over everything they do and say.

They are seperate issues. I stand firmly by what I said.

But, before we go further, you should be responsible and either back up your statement that I am a bigot, or retract it. Where is my bigoted statement?

"Revering a book is stupid"

I say this is bigoted of you, as a person of faith, because you admit the existence of non-rationally known faith based entities whose instructions ought to be taken seriously in your own life.

But - you - from a position of believing the utterances of your own god, mock the instructions of others.

I say you, as a believer in gods, have no basis for doing so except "my god is better than yours" basis.

What do you think of all of Gunga's statements on this thread, speaking of bigotry?

You share a god - DO YOU BELIEVE THE PROPHETS OF OTHER RELIGIONS ARE RAVENING WOLVES?

Do you believe this:

"and that Christ specifically warned us against bandit chieftains and pedophiles like Mohammed who would try to claim to be prophets and the like:


Quote:

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Should Islam be "cast into the fire"

This appears to be what your jealous god instructs.


I will not communicate further with you on this matter until you answer that question.

Surely you can see that this is germane to the discussion?

Oh - I spent a couple of minutes on Google - here is a teeny number of your posts on Islam. I didn't bother with your post lists - for Lash, Sofia or Lash Goth.

As I said, I know this is useless, cos you will deny and deride - and claim "joking" and such - but most people will find them quite revealing. They may explain to some why I have bothered arguing with you on this, when my main concern is with Gunga. I didn't start on any of your other hates - I think this is an unedifying process...but you asked.





ALL of them, Lash??????





(You appear to think this is true of all Muslim countries, Lash - it is most certainly not so - it IS in America's dear ally, Saudi Arabia - but not, for instance, in the most populous Muslim nation on earth - Indonesia - could this be a little bigoted, hmmmm? Oh - but it is a joke, no?)

This one is a tad questionable - because you DO qualify it as being supporters of Osama - but its tone is a little instructive:






Cute - but a joke, of course. Little odd crapping on another faith, some might say. Whatever.



THEY? ALL of "them"?

"Fruity" book - hmmmmmm - how would you characterize that particular comment? You seem to like to apply unpleasant gay-related terms to those you dislike - I seem to recall you calling Chirac and Schroeder "bum-buddies".

Oh - a joke - right.



Lash applying the golden thread of western justice - innocence until proven guilty - to Islamic prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

Lash: "I referred to them as detainees while I was addressing the issue."

Hmmmmmmmm.....

And Lash, you just might to look that list of filth Gungasnake posted, it might reveal just who you are aligning yourself with in this.

Joe(or keep one eye blind)Nation

The Koran is revered by Muslims. The people who were guilty of mishandling the Koran were showing contempt for the religion of Islam which in turn shows contempt for any of the devout Muslim detainees. They were doing it for effect. If it made no difference and was "just a book" why would they do it?

We are supposed to honor the religious beliefs of the people in our prisons. It is not honoring the religious beliefs if we show contempt of the religion of the people we hold in our prisons.

Apparently it was just a few cases that we know about and can say for sure. Even so, the administration would do better to admit to those few "mishandlings" and apologize to the Muslim world without any excuses that disclaims their apology.

But we should know better by now that the administration and those that cheer and support it will do no such thing. Instead they will stick to the same tactics that have served them well these last couple of years of reviling, ridiculing, downplaying and pointing fingers in the other direction.

Added to this is also the underlying element of bigotry that is hard to prove but easy to see. Arab/ Muslims have become the new targets in racial bigotry. Maybe they were always targets but with 9/11 those that have always felt that way have had an avenue to vent their spleen of hatred without it seeming like hatred.

I realize that Arabs and Muslims probably have their bigotry, however, two wrongs don't make a right.

I know, I know, I'm being evil and bigotted again by saying bad things about I-slam and mohammed...

Let me tell you the best way to look at the whole question of Islam, which does not involve religion or any sort of a religious argument at all.

Take a look at any map of Africa and Asia. You will see an unbroken gigantic swath of territory known as the muslim world stretching from the wall of China to the west coast of Africa and up and down for tens of degrees of lattitude. Unbroken that is other than for the miniscule sliver of land called Israel which you have to know exactly where to look for on the map to even find. Moreover, that tiny sliver was created from land which nobody was using 120 years ago and which was sitting there empty, and yet we've seen an unending crybaby act and a continuum of terrorism for 60 years over that tiny sliver of land.

The question you have to ask yourself looking at that giant swath of territory is this: did the former owners of all that land simply GIVE it to the followers of Mohammed because they thought they were nice people and they deserved it, or was that monolithic land mass put together by fire and sword and butchery?

See if you can figure it out...

Gunga apparently forgets who owned America before we showed up,

And who was in Europe before the Romans took it over

But what's the point? You can't argue with Racists and Bigots with facts...

Cycloptichorn

Yeah - looks a bit like the British Empire used to look.

Only a lot smaller.

You know, Gunga, it is perfectly possible to appreciate the dangers created by such bigoted, fanatical people as Islamic fundamentalist terrorists - or other groups - without getting into the hateful, bigoted stuff that you and some others here do.

In my estimation, you simply are clueless.

I do not hate individual slammites; I hate I-slam. There is absolutely nothing biggoted about hating or despising a false religion.

Likewise, there is no particular law of physics to prevent a Christian or a Jew from being an a$$hole. Nonetheless, in order to be an a$$hole, a Christian, Jew, Budhist, or Hindu has to be in substantial violation of the basic tenets of his religion. A slammite, on the other hand, has to be in substantial violation of the basic tenets of HIS religion in order to be a decent person. THAT is the differernce.

Islammic societies still work after a fashion, as do "secular humanist" societies, because the basic tenets of REAL religion (as opposed to I-slam) are pretty much coded into most people biologically. Nonetheless the religion itself (I-slam) is basicaly a call to lunacy and, at any given time, some percentage of its followers (slammites) are ready to heed that call. The world would clearly be better off were those people to all be converted to some decent religion.

They say that I-slam has "bloody borders", meaning that, pretty much anywhere in the world where slammite societies border on non-slammites societies, there is trouble and bloodshed. You can check this out yourself:

http://www.google.com/search?q=islam++%22bloody+borders%22&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

There are something like 30 or 40 major sorts of trouble spots in the world today as I read it. A half dozen or so involve things like North Korea, Taiwan, Zimbabwe (Jimmy Carter's most major accomplishment in life), Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, and Columbia. The rest all involve I-slam.

I notice that even Lash has dropped out of this thread knowing that she would have to link up with your links of racist and bigoted hate.

However, in this case you have provided the perfect skewer for your pathetic world view:

An American Muslim replies:

We now turn to the matter about Islam's "bloody borders." In his book, The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington claims that "Muslim bellicosity and violence are late-twentieth century facts which neither Muslims nor non-Muslims can deny." In support of this thesis, he offers a list of inter-civilizational conflicts on Islam's borders in the 1990s. He also provides some quantitative evidence purporting to show that Muslims had a disproportionate share in inter-civilizational conflicts during 1993-94.

A more careful examination of the data tells a different story. Jonathan Fox, in the Journal of Peace Research (2000), has shown that Islam was involved in 23.2 percent of all inter-civilizational conflicts between 1945 and 1989, and 24.7 percent of these conflicts during 1990 to 1998. This is not too far above Islam's share in world population; nor do we observe any dramatic rise in this share since the end of the Cold War. It would appear that Huntington's "facts" about "Muslim bellicosity" fail to qualify as facts.

In any case, we have to be careful when we talk about "bloody borders." A hard look at the geography of civilizations soon reveals that the length of these borders vary strikingly, and that Islam's share of such borders is disproportionately large. On the one hand, Islam's geographic sweep across the Afro-Eurasian landmass brings it into contact-both close and extensive-with the African, Western, Orthodox, Hindu and Buddhist civilizations. In addition, we must count the internal borders between often large pockets of majority Islam within non-Islamic countries and vice versa. It is my impression that if we added up all of these borders, Islam's share of borders might well exceed the combined share of all others. A recognition of these facts might help to place observations about Islam's "bloody borders" in a less prejudicial perspective.

=====
Thanks.

Someday, if you read enough and open your mind enough, you may realize that Islam is only as misguided as Christianity. Both have believers who are perverters of the belief. I believe you are a perverter of the Christian faith, a hater, not a man of peace which one would argue is the very definition of Christ. Across the world there are millions of Muslims who live their lives well, treat their neighbors fairly and peaceably and spread a word that you have no inkling of and no right to denigrate.

I asked you before what you believed and why. Why would you profess to be a Christian when you are so obviously full of blind hate?

Joe(There is no water that can make a blind eye see)Nation

I'd like to see the Muslim majority rise up and strike down the fundamentalists perverting their religion. Or at least maybe write a a strong letter of protest.

Joe--Just a damn minute. I can put up with all manner of crap on these threads, but I cannot abide someone using my absence--something that they know nothing about whatsoever--to try to make some cheap point.

I do have a life. Sometimes, it requires an absence here.

Nothing more.

This is my first post today. I'll read back now and see what caused you to say such a thing about me.

Losing a debate might have had something to do with it...

Congratulations, Gungasnake, now we know you have the support of McGentrix and Lash for your list of hate-speech sites, that is unless they step up right now and disavow them and you.

Joe(how tight are those knots?)Nation

You got 'em on the ropes, Joe.

Far as I'm concerned, when all somebody has to say is to try to demonize me as a hate monger or some such, he's lost the debate.

How could anyone possible "demonize" you as a hate monger Gunga? You do all the hate mongering on your own. Your use of derogatory slang reveals the truth. It is hardly "demonizing" to point out the obvious.

You've been a busy bunny since I was last here.

OK, I wanted to see your proof of my bigotry.

I must say, I've actually mulled this. I'm not afraid to call myself a bigot if that's what I am. Primarily, because I know what I think, say, mean and feel and I'm not ashamed of any of it when it relates to race, nationality, religion or any other major characteristics of people. I say in public what I say in private. I'm completely transparent in this area--from choice.

However, I won't agree to something that's not accurate. I'm still deciding...

I sincerely believe that you are fully aware that when I make broad statements about Muslims, and point out certain behavior, that I am quite obviously only referring to those people in that group who practice the behavior.

One of the posts you brought even states this.

BTW, I am not ashamed of anything I said in those posts. Muslim women are assaulted and oppressed in many Muslim countries with the blessing of the Koran. It obviously was a joke, but jokes can be bigoted. I don't think that one was, but I'm not the best arbiter of that particular issue. I don't know what that guy said before I said that....context...

The first time you brought my quote "Revering a book is stupid", I thought you had accidentally left part off. For the past few days, as I was fussing about the ridiculous hoopla surrounding treatment of a book by guards, I have many times written the entire complaint out--it is stupid for guards to feel compelled to treat a book with gloves and go to so much trouble. It is stupid to assuage an irrational belief by accepting criticism of book handling. It isn't their BELIEF that I criticise--it is when observation of their belief is demanded of others.

I've said this many times, and I will not hold myself responsible for writing this disclaimer every time I make a comment about stupid Muslim beliefs when they encroach on others.

Again. Perception is quite a thing. I know Muslims I like. I don't consider them in the same category as Muslims who follow murderous, oppressive, intolerant practices, which they cite in their book. So, I cannot be bigoted against Muslims.

I am, however, distinctly bigoted against violent, dangerous, women beating, terrorist sympathizing, Koran thumping Muslims.

So, at this juncture, we each think the other is a bigot.

Not much accomplished.

Joe--

A point that's important to me, but maybe only me-- I felt it was wrong that Gunga was attacked in your first post and dlowan's. He had a right to post what he did--just as you and she had a right to freak out over it--and I had a right to say his post wasn't as bad as the two of you made it out to be. Christians are lampooned ALL THE TIME. Why can't Muslims be?

I haven't looked at the links he brought. I rarely do look at posts that appear like that one--lots of links--no matter who posted them. Scrolled, as usual.

---
However, I do see I referred to detainees as war criminals. Likely because I believe they are. But, I try to refer to them by their legal title. Twas a slip on my part.

Well, Joe.

Tell me what you thought about PDiddie's pictures of Condi Rice's face superimposed on Aunt Jemima, and I'll look at these links.

But, I can tell you right now--no matter what I think of those links, I'll never disavow a person. I'm not righteous enough to cast a person aside. Guess maybe when I get all perfect and pure like you and your ilk, I can start disavowing people.

(Have chosen to use "ilk" at least once a day. Don't know why...)